See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311608638

An overview of edible fruit and nuts in Papua New Guinea

Chapter · January 2010

CITATIONS READS

0 985

1 author:

Richard Michael Bourke

Australian National University
180 PUBLICATIONS   1,384 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Agricultural studies in Solomon Islands and Vanuatu View project

Food production and land use in Papua New Guinea View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard Michael Bourke on 14 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PAPUA NEW GUINEA
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Fruits and Nuts: Research and

Development Issues
in Papua New Guinea

Proceedings No. 9

May 2010
THE INSTITUTE

The National Agricultural Research Institute was established by an Act ofNational Parliament of
i Ill!
ill

PapuaNewGuinea(pNG) inJuly 1996 as a public funded, statutory research organisation, to conduct and
foster applied and adaptive research into:

i) any branch ofbiological, physical and natural sciences related to agriculture;

ii) cultural and socioeconomic aspects ofthe agricultural sector, especially ofthe smallholder agriculture;
and

iii) matters relating to rural development. Papers presented at the Fruits and Nuts Workshop held at the IATP
Farmer Training Centre, University of Natural Resource and Environment
Besides, NARlis responsible for providing technical, analytical, diagnostic and advisory services and up- (formerly University of Vudal) from 11 - 13 October 2005
to-date information to the agriculture sector in PNG.

The Institute' s purpose (strategic objective) is to accomplish enhanced productivity, efficiency, stability and
sustainabilityofthe smallholder agriculture sector in the country so as to contribute to the improved welfare
ofruralfarnilies and communities who depend wholly orpartly on agriculture for their livelihoods. llis is
intendedto be accomplished throughNARI' s missionofpromoting innovative agricultural development in
PapuaNewGuineathrough scientific research,knowledge creation and information exchange.

In its vision for PNG, NARI sees "Prosperous PNG Agricultural Communities".

Edited by
Alan Quartermain and Barbara Tomi

Proceedings No. 9

May 2010

ii
Correct Citation: Quartennain, A.R. and Tomi , B. (eds) 2010. Fruits and Nuts: Research and Development
Issues in Papua New Guinea. Workshop Proceedings No. 9. National Agricultural Research Institute, Lae, Pages
Papua New Guinea.
1. An Overview of Edible Fruit and Nuts in Papua New Guinea -R Michael Bourke .......................... l

2. Brief Overview: Fruit and Nut Research -Tio Nevenimo ............................................................ 21

The views expressed in papers presented in this proceedings are those ofthe authors and do not 3. Developing Fruit and Nut in Papua New Guinea- Ario Movis ................................................... 24
necessarily constitute or coincide with the opinions of the National Agricultural Research
4 Production Patterns for Fruit and Nut Species in Papua New Guinea and some
Institute. Implications for Marketing - R Michael Bourke ............. ......... ................................ ................ 29

5. Quarantine and Market Access for Fruits and Nuts Exports ,

in Papua New Guinea - Roy Masamdu and David Tenakanai ................................................. :'1'6

6. Indigenous Fruit in Papua New Guinea- R. Michael Bourke ..................................................... .39

7. Exotic Fruits with Potential in the Lowlands -Tio Nevenimo ..................................................... 49

8. Potential Exotic Fruits and Nuts for the Highlands - Martin Gunther ........................................... 53

9. Potential for Further Commercial Development of Introduced Fruits - R Michael Bourke ............ 58

10. Tropical Fruit Development in PapuaNew Guinea "The Hard Yards"- B.J. Watson ................... 68

11. Suitability for Commercial Macadamia Production in PNG - R ..A. Stephenson ...................... 77

12. Indigenous Edible Nuts in Papua New Guinea - R Michael Bourke .............................................. 84

13. PNG Galip consumer survey - Tio Nevenimo, Clifton Gwabu, Jesse Anjen,
Mark Johnston, and Je.ffrey Binifa ........ .............. ...................... ........................ .................... 99'
14. Fruit and Nut Domestication Experiences - Roger Leaky ........................................................... 124
ISBN: 9980-932-75-9
15. Macadamia: Domestication and Commercialisation (published in Chronica
Copyright © 2010 National Agricultural Research Institute (NARI). All rights reserved. Horticulturae 45 (2): 11-15,2005) - RA. Stephenson .............................................................. 136

The Director General 16. Outcomes of the Papua New Guinea Fruits and Nuts Workshop - Mark Johnston ...................... 149
National Agricultural Research Institute
NARI Head Office Annex 1: Workshop Participants ............................................................................................. 157
Sir Alkan Tololo Research Centre
PO Box 4415
LAE411
Morobe Province
Papua New Guinea

Ph: (675) 4751444

Fax:(675)4751450
E-mail: narihq@narLorg.pg

Website: www.nari.org.pg

iv
iii

R. Michael Bourke
Abstract
This paper provides an overview of what is
known about edible fruit and nuts in Papua
New Guinea (pNG). Firstly, a case is made
as to why there needs to be more effort on
research and development on fruit and nuts
in PNG, focusing on both the domestic and
overseas markets. A broad overview is given
on current knowledge about fruit and nuts,
including the species grown, where they
grow, their altitudinal range, the population
growing each species and number of trees
per household. Aspects of production,
consumption and marketing that are
reviewed include crop agronomy, pest and
disease problems, production levels, changes
over time, general marketing constraints,
consumption and consumer demand. Lastly,
some main papers that review fruit and nut
species in PNG are listed.
Introduction
This paper provides an overview of what is
known about edible fruit and nuts in PNG.
The focus is on information that
development workers, researchers and
planners can readily access, not on
knowledge by villagers, which is extensive,
but is not readily accessible to outsiders. The
paper does not give a summary of all
existing information nor claim to be
comprehensive. There are some topics
where we have a reasonable amount of
available information and others where we
have very little. Firstly, I want to make a
case for greater research and development
efforts on fruit and nuts in PNG.
Why more research and
development effort on fruit and
nuts in PNG?
There are a number of reasons why more
effort needs to be directed at promoting fruit
and nut production and sales ~thin PNG
Fruit and Nut workshop proceedings
and to overseas markets. I first consider the
domestic market.
The domestic market within PNG
Production of fruit and nuts for sale within
PNG is already a significant activity for
many people. I suggest that this should be
expanded for the following reasons:
1. There is a significant urban and non-
village rural population and these
people buy most of their food needs,
either from locally grown or imported
sources. Based on a growth .rate of
2.7% per year, the total population of
PNG will be six million in 2006 or
2007. Of these, 8% are rural villagers,
13% live in urban centres and six
percent live in 'rural non-village' a
location that is, in small stations,
missions, plantations, schools, logging
camps and mines. Thus there are a
significant number of non-villagers
(about one million people).
2. Domestically marketed food already
provides significant amounts of cash
income to rural villagers. More rural
Papua New Guineans live in
households where income is derived
from selling food than from any other
activity (Allen et al. 2001).
3. Imports of grains and other food into
PNG are static or declining because of
the low exchange rate of the PNG kina
against the United States dollar. This
has created greater opportunities for
people to grow and sell food within
PNG and villagers have responded to
increased demand by producing more
locally grown food.
4. There are marked ecological differences
within PNG, especially between the
highlands and lowlands, but also within
the lowlands and within the highlands.
This creates many opportunities for
selling fresh food within PNG.
5. Most fruit in the highlands is not very
sweet, for example, purple passionfruit,
tamarillo (tree tomato), pineapple,
pawpaw and strawberry. Highlanders
like sweet foods and this explains why
production of one fruit that is very
sweet, suga prut (Passiflora ligularis),
has expanded greatly over the past 30
years.
6. There is high demand for snack foods,
especially in urban centres and in the
highlands. The indigenous nuts can be
processed and sold as snack foods.
7. Several of the indigenous edible nuts
have been successfully developed
commercially in Vanuatu and in the
Solomon Islands. Galip (Canarium
spp.) is sold as a processed snack food
in Honiara and Port Vila Sea almond or
talis (Terminalia catappa) and pao
(Barringtonia spp.) are also sold in Port
Vila (Long Wab 1996).
markets
There is considerable potential for
production of indigenous nuts to overseas
markets. The case for much greater effort
into developing these products is based on:
1. The current crop base for exports is
narrow and is limited to several tree
crops and a few spice crops. This can
create economic instability as the prices Species grown: The species of fruit and nuts
of oil palm, coffee, cocoa and copra
change over time. A broader economic
base provides a greater buffer from
such variation.
2. There is currently a strong focus on oil
palm in PNG. However, oil palm is
dependent on extensive areas of land
and the conversion of high diversity
tropical forest into very low diversity
oil palm plantations. High value
products, including some of the
indigenous nuts, do not demand so
much land and hence help conserve
forests.
3. Land for further expansion of large-
scale agriculture in PNG is limited.
Currently, one-quarter of the total land
mass ofPNG (460,000 km2) is used for
agriculture (including fallows). Most of
the remainder is too mountainous,
swampy, or too high for crop
production. Future expansion will have
to come mostly from more intensive
land use, better quality produce and
high-value crops. The indigenous nuts
provide a high value product.
4. The village agricultural sector is
growing reasonably fast, despite
assertions to the contrary. Villagers are
responsive to new economic
opportunities, as demonstrated in recent
years by the boom in vanilla production
and the rapid expansion of domestically
marketed food following the loss of
value of the PNG kina in 1997.
5. Fruit and nut trees do not need large
areas of land; they fit into existing
agricultural systems and trees of certain
species already exist in significant
quantities in many locations.
6. Some of the indigenous edible nuts,
including galip and okari, have received
favourable reaction when market-tested
in Australia, the USA and Europe.
Knowledge about fruit and nuts in
PNG
The species being grown and where they
growinPNG
that are grown and eaten in PNG are known.
There is no single document that covers all
species, but relevant information is available
in a series of review papers. Some are more
general and cover species used for other
purposes, in particular Powell (1976) and
French (1986). Others cover groups of fruit
and nut species, for example, Bourke (1996)
gives a list of 44 species of edible
indigenous nuts with an indication of their
significance in village agriculture and
discusses six of these species in detail. The
main papers which review the various fruits
and nuts are listed in Table 1.
As well as knowing what is grown in PNG,
and has been tried experimentally, we also
have a good idea as to how well different
species grow and what does not grow welL
For example, despite repeated attempts, we
know that the following fruit do not grow
well in PNG: apples, blueberries, date
palms, grapes, kiwifruit, Mediterranean figs,
nectarines, olives, persimmons and plums.
Distribution: The distribution of the more
important species is known from the
Mapping Agricultural Systems of PNG
(MASP) database. This was a national-level
survey of village agricultural systems
conducted over a six-year period (1990-
1995), where land used for agriculture was
allocated to one of 342 agricultural systems
(Bourke et al. 1998). Using this database, it
is possible to generate maps showing where
a given species is common or important (as
distinct from being merely present). This is
illustrated with maps showing the
distribution of mango, marita pandanus,
galip nut and karuka nut (Figures 1 to 4).
There are some limitations in using this
database to map the distribution of fruit and
nuts. This is because the boundaries of the
agricultural systems were drawn on criteria
other than the distribution of fruit and nut
species. As well, the decision as to whether
a species is important or merely present in
an agricultural system is subjective.
Nevertheless, the patterns that emerge from
this database are reasonably accurate, at
least for the better-knQwn species.
Regional-level distribution: There is some
limited regional-level data on the relative
importance of fruit and nuts that
complements the MASP database. An
exercise was conducted in 1995 on the
island of New Britain, excluding the Gazelle
Peninsula, where people in 16 villages were
asked to rank the relative importance of fruit
and nut trees in their diet (RM. Bourke,
unpublished data). The results are presented
in Table 2. Allowing for some differences in
species that are grown on New Britain and
the New Guinea mainland (such as marita
pandanus which is unimportant on New
Britain) and the fact that this survey
excluded non-tree species, the ranking by
villagers is broadly similar to the national-
level data derived from the MASP database.
For example, breadfruit was rfWked as the
most important species by villagers on New
Britain and the MASP exercise found that
breadfruit was the most commonly grown
nut species at the national level (Tables 2
and 3).
Altitudinal range: The altitudinal range of
fruit and nuts in PNG is known from an
extensive national-level survey conducted
by the author from 1979 to 1984 (Bourke
1989). Results for 56 fruit and 20 nut
species are presented in Tables 4 and 5
respectively. Data are presented for the
usual range and the extreme range. The
former figure is the mean of a number of
observations (minimum four locations) of
the minimum and maximum altitude at
which a crop bears its main economic
product. The extreme mmnnum or
maximum is based on a single figure for a
location where the crop was grown in an
unusual situation. For example, pineapple is
normally grown from sea level to an upper
limit of 1800 m. The latter figure is the
mean of observations at 25 locations and has
a standard deviation of ±1l0 m. It is grown
occasionally as high as 2380 m altitude
(Table 4). Cashew grows from sea level up
to 1400 m under extreme conditions, but we
do not have sufficient observations to define
its usual upper altitudinallimit (Table 5).
The data on crop altitudinal limits were
recorded before the impact of global
climatic change had a significant effect on
PNG. Over the period 1970 to 1999, the
mean temperature in the PNG lowlands and
highlands increased at a rate of 0.2 QC per
decade (R.M. Bourke and G. Humphreys,
unpublished data). Since these data were
collected, the upper limit of a number of
species has increased by an amount that is
consistent with the temperature rise in PNG
over the past 30 years. Thus it is likely that
the potential upper altitudinal limit of many
crops could now be about 100 m higher than
the figures in Tables 4 and 5 indicate.
Population growing each species: Because
the MASP database is linked to spatial
information on the rural population, it is
possible to calculate the number of people

2

who live in an agricultural system where a
particular species is important (see Tables 3
and 6).1 Again, there are limitations to the
accuracy of this exercise because of the
sUbjective distinction between a species
being important, present or unimportant.
However, the ranking of the relative
importance of species from such an exercise
is likely to be reasonably accurate.
Number of trees per household: There is
only limited information on the number of
trees managed by households. A survey of
the number of economic tree crops (coffee,
fruit, nuts and highland betel nut) was done
by the author for 20 households in two
highland villages in 1984 (Bourke 1988 :29-
31,44). The results are summarised in Table
7. For example, in Asiranka village in
Kainantu District, there were an average of
176 karuka nut pandanus, 19 marita
pandanus trees and 5 avocado trees per
household.
Production, consumption
marketing
Crop agronomy: Many aspects of crop
agronomy are poorly known for most
introduced and traditional fruit and nut
species in PNG. These include: propagation
techniques, yield patterns, responses to
fertiliser, storage processing and handling
for commercial production. The paper titled
'What we don't know about indigenous nuts
in Melanesia' by Evans (1996b)
unfortunately remains almost as true now as
it was when written a decade ago.
Pest and disease problems: The most
important insect pests and diseases of :fruit
and nuts in PNG are known. See papers or
monographs by Brough (1982), Masamdu
(1991), Smith and Thistleton (1982) and
Kumar (2001) on insect pests; and those by
tonnes per year in 2000. Banana provided 7 production, handling and processing of
and Muthappa (1991) for plant pathogens.
percent of the food energy derived from fresh food.
Despite having reasonably good information
locally grown staple (energy) foods. Evans
on the main pest and disease problems,
economic impacts of the various insects and (1996b: 17) estimated that there were one Consumer demand: Information on
million edible Canarium (galip nut) trees in demand for :fruit and nuts is limited. We
pathogens are poorly understood.
PNG, with total production of 7,200 tonnes know in broad terms that there is unsatisfied
of kernel per year. He assigned a farm gate
Superior cultivars selected by villagers. demand for sweet :fruit in the highlands and
value ofUS$22 million to this in 1996. that sweet :fruit, such as mandarins grown at
There is some scattered information on the
800-1200 m altitude, can be readily sold in
location of superior cultivars that have been
Changes in production and consumption highland markets. We also know that :fruit
selected by villagers. Aburu (1982:104), for
over time: There is some information on and nuts are sold in significant quantities in
example, notes that there is a variety of galip
changes in production over time. For urban markets. Beyond this, there is only
nut with a soft shell on Misima Island; and
example, in the highlands, production and limited information on volumes produced,
Bourke (1996:53) makes the same comment
consumption of avocado has increased over volumes sold or consumer demand.
for sea almond for Iwa Island in the
the past 40 years, as has that for suga prot.
Marshall Bennett Group in MiIne Bay
Durian was once shunned by Papua New Consumption: Some data exists on
Province. More generally, it is clear that
Guineans at Keravat, but is now reported as consumption. I have not done a
selection of superior cultivars has been made
being popular. Mangosteen is a recent comprehensive literature survey, but my
for various :fruit and nut species on many
introduction to food markets on the Gazelle impression is that :fruit and nuts are often
small islands. This has happened on, for
Peninsula, where it has become a popular classified as 'other' in nutrition surveys. The
example, the Arawe Islands and Unea Island
:fruit (Tio Nevenimo, pers. comm. 2005). exception is for marita and karuka pandanus,
off New Britain; Nissan and Pinipel islands
The quantity of fruit moved from the where the quantities consumed are often
between Bougainville and New Ireland;
highlands to lowland urban centres has significant. For example, on the Sirunki
Boisa (Aris) Island off the mouth of the
increased over the past 20 years. For Plateau in Enga Province, males and females
Ramu River in Madang Province; and
example, banana passionftuit, tamarillo (tree in different age brackets consumed an
and Mussau Island, the Feni (Anir) Islands and
tomato) and suga prot are now sold by average of 1-17 grams of karuka nuts per
the Tanga Islands off New Ireland.
highlanders to hotels in Madang, whereas day (Sinnett 1975:30).2
these species were not sold there in the
Superior introduced cultivars: Cultivars of
1980s. Odani (2002) conducted a food intake study
a number of :fruit species have been
in a village on the Great Papuan Plateau in
introduced into PNG for evaluation. These
General marketing constraints for fresh the Mt Bosavi area, Southern Highlands
include avocado (Rogers 1992), carambola,
food: A number pf constraints affect Province. He recorded that marita pandanus
durian, mango, pawpaw, rambutan (see
marketing of fresh food in PNG and limit contributed almost half (44%) of the fat in
papers by T. Neventino, B. Watson and S.
development of :fruit and nuts as well as the villagers' diet, ahead of pig meat (22%)
Woodhouse in this proceedings), and
other fresh food. These constraints include: and bandicoot (8%). Marita also provided
various citrus species (Rogers and Movis
III poor state of maintenance of many 15% of food energy, after banana (32%) and
1991).
roads and bridges, especially away from sago (27%); and 11% of protein, after
main routes banana (20%) and equal with bandicoot
Production patterns: Information has been
limited and expensive shipping within (11 %). A study by Philip Harvey and Peter
published on the production patterns,
PNG Heywood in a village in Sinasina District in
seasonal or otherwise, for 75 species of :fruit
low standards for handling fresh food Simbu Province found that karuka nut and
and 25 species of nuts (Bourke et al. 2004).
inadequate linkages of individuals in marita pandanus (combined data)
(Also see the paper in this volume:
the marketing chain, including poor contributed 8% of energy and 8% of protein
Production patterns for :fruit and nut species
communication, inadequate
in Papua New Guinea and some implications
development of business skills in key The intake of karuka nut is insignificant compared
for marketing). 2

Pearson (1982), Shaw (1984) and Philemon
I More correctly, these figures are the proportion of
rural villagers who live in agricultural systems where
each fruit or nut species was classed as common or
important. Not all people in any agricultural system
grow each species and people living in other systems
may grow them, so the figures are approximate.
4
Production levels: With the exception of
banana and galip nut, there is little
information on the quantity of :fruit and nuts
produced in PNG. Bourke and Vlassak
(2004) estimated production of banana (used
in cooking and as fresh fruit) as 436,000
individuals and insufficient
intermediate traders (middlemen)
III limited propagation and distribution of
improved planting material
inadequate dissemination, to growers
and those involved in marketing, of
information on improved methods for
5
with sweet potato which was up to 1.1-1.7 kg per
person per day for different age brackets of men and
women. However, the intake of karuka nut varies
greatly over time, so data from a survey conducted
over a short period has little meaning. It is known
that many villagers, especially those living at over
2000 m altitude, consume a lot of nuts of both the
planted and wild karuka nut species when they are
fruiting.

at the time of their 1981 study. The figures
were 10% for protein and 6% for energy in a
study in the same village in 1975 (Harvey
and Heywood 1983:103).
Experience elsewhere in Melanesia: The
experience with commercialisation of
indigenous nuts in Solomon Islands and
Vanuatu can be used as a guide for
commercialisation in the future, as can the
limited PNG experience with galip nut in
New Britain (Evans 1994; Henderson 1996;
Wissink 1996) and okari nut on the
Managalas Plateau in Oro Province (Ase
1996; Houghton 1996; Olsson 1996).
Literature on fruit and nuts in PNG
Despite a large body of literature on fruit
and nuts in PNG, there are numerous
significant gaps in our knowledge, as noted
above. As well as papers that review more
than one species (Table 1), a number of
papers cover aspects of individual crops, for
example, for apple (Willson 1982), avocado
(Rogers 1992; Watson et al. 2001), banana
(Fooks 1991), cashew (AlIen 1991), durian
(Ngere 2002), galip nut (Alms 1996; Maima
1996), karuka nut (Rose 1982), mandarin
and orange (Rogers and Movis 1991),
mango (Tarepe 1991), naranjilla (Tarepe
1982), pineapple (Watson 2005), purple
passionfruit (Nitsche 1971), rockmelon
(Antonio 1986) and strawberry (Tarepe
1979).
There is much ethnobotanical material on
village production from many locations in
PNG. The following is an example of a
description from Nissan Island in
Bougainville Province:
People depend on garden food, various fruits
and nuts and a little imported rice '" Among
the fruit, mango and golden apple (kalok)
are very common. Other fruits include
bukabuk, watery rose apple, orange,
mandarin, pawpaw, pineapple, ton, pomelo,
guava and lovilovi. Nut trees are very
common and include pao, galip, Polynesian
chestnut; sea almond and minor amounts of
tulip seed. Both the flesh and seed of
breadfruit are commonly eaten '" People
6 7
Fruit and Nut workshop proceedings
preserve the flesh of breadfruit by roasting it
to form a biscuit. This is said to remain
unspoilt for several years. People also
preserve the kernels of galip, pao and sea
almond nuts by smoking. Fruit of golden
apple from Nissan is popular in Rabaul and
Buka markets (Bourke and Betitis 2003 :65).
No attempt is made to surveyethnobotanical
literature here. A useful recent review of
some of this kind of literature is given by
Kennedy and Clarke (2004). From the
MASP project, references cited in each
provincial Working Paper are a useful entry
point for ethnobotanical literature (for
example, see Bourke, AlIen et al. (2002) for
East New Britain Province and Bourke,
Hide et al. (2002) for West New Britain
Province).
Increasingly, papers and monographs can be
accessed from the World Wide Web,
sometimes in unexpected locations. Bruce
French's (1986) book, for example, has been
placed on a web site for Indonesian Papua
(http://www.papuaweb.org/dlib/bldfrench/).
Other papers cited here that can be located
on the web include those in ACIAR
Proceedings Numbers 69 and 99; the
Mapping Agricultural Systems of PNG
working papers and other papers produced
by the Land Management Group at The
Australian National University (for example,
Bourke and Betitis 2003; Bourke and
Vlassak 2004) and RMAP working papers
(RSPAS, ANU). Typing the title of the
paper or volume and the author's name into
a search engine will usually fmd the item.
There are a number of hard copy
bibliographies on fruit and nuts in PNG as
well as electronic literature databases that
can be searched for particular species,
locations or aspects. The most accessible of
the published bibliographies is that by
Walter et al. (1996) on the South Pacific
indigenous nuts. Electronic bibliographies
are being developed by the National
Agricultural Research Institute; by the Land
Management Group, ANU (the PNG
Agriculture Literature Database), by Dr
Robin Hide in Canberra and by Professor
Terry Hays in Rhode Island, USA. The
AND database is available as a CD and is
being continually updated.
Acknowledgements
The MASP database was generated in
association with Bryant AlIen, Robin Hide
and other colleagues in the Land
Management Group at The Australian
National University. Bryant Allen extracted
the data from that database for Tables 3 and
6 and Figures 1 to 4. Tracy Harwood of the
LMG did a fine job in editing my five
papers in this volume.
References
Aburu, K. 1982. Notes on Some Fruit and
Nut Trees in the Keravat area of East New
Britain. In: Bourke, RM. and Kesavan, V.
(eds). Proceedings of the Second Papua
New Guinea Food Crops Conference. pp.
101-122.
Akus, W.L. 1996. The Canarium Nut:
Research and Development at the Lowlands
Agricultural Experiment Station, Keravat,
Papua New Guinea. In: Stevens, M.L.,
Bourke, R.M. and Eyans, B.R (eds). South
Pacific Indigeno~ Nuts, ACIAR
Proceedings No. 69: 110-112.
AlIen, B.J., Bourke, RM. and Hanson, L.
2001. Dimensions of PNG Village
Agriculture. In: Bourke, RM., AlIen, M.G.
and Salisbury, J.G. (eds). Food Security for
Papua New Guinea. Proceedings of the
Papua New Guinea Food and Nutrition 2000
Conference. ACIAR Proceedings No. 99. pp.
529-553.
Allen, M. 1991. Cashews in Papua New
Guinea. In: Bala, A.A. (ed). Proceedings of
the Papua New Guinea First International
Fruit Conference. pp. 169-180.
Antonio, W.C. 1986. Rock Melons as a
Cash Crop in the Markham Valley. Harvest
12(1):5-9.
Ase, D. 1996. Production and Market
Development of Okari Nuts (Terminalia
kaernbachii) on the Managalas Plateau in
Papua New Guinea. In M.L. Stevens, R.M.
Bourke and B.R. Evans (eds). South Pacific
Indigenous Nuts. ACIAR Proceedings No.
69. pp. 92-93.
Bourke, RM. 1976. Making Pineapples
Fruit Harvest 3(4):122-126.
Bourke, R.M. Unpublished. PhD Thesis.
Taim Hangre: Variation in Subsistence
Food Supply in the Papua New Guinea
Highlands. The Australian National
University, Canberra.
Bourke, RM. Unpublished Paper.
Altitudinal Limits of 230 Economic Crop
Species in Papua New Guinea. Department
of Human Geography, Research School of
Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian
National University, Canberra.
Bourke, RM. 1996. Edible Indigenous Nuts
in Papua New Guinea. In: Stevens, M.L.,
Bourke, RM. and Evans, B.R (eds). South
Pacific Indigenous Nuts. A CIAR
Proceedings No. 69. pp. 45-55.
Bourke, R.M. Unpublished paper. Food
Crop Yields in Papua New Guinea. Land
Management Group, The Australian
National University.
Bourke, RM., AlIen, BJ., Hobsbawn, P.
and Conway, J. 1998. Papua New Guinea:
Text Summaries. Agricultural Systems of
Papua New Guinea Working Paper No 1.
Two volumes. Department of Human
Geography, The Australian National
University, Canberra.
Bourke, R.M., Allen, B.J., Hide, R.L.,
Fritsch, D., Geob, T., Grau, R, Heai, S.,
Hobsbawn, P., Ling, G., Lyon, S. and
Poienou, M. 2002. East New Britain
Province: Text Summaries, Maps, Code
Lists and Village Identification. Agricultural
Systems of Papua New Guinea Working
Paper No. 14. Revised edition. Department
of Human Geography, The Australian
National University, Canberra.
Bourke, R.M. and Betitis, T. 2003.
Sustainability ofAgriculture in Bougainville
Province, Papua New Guinea. Land
Management Group, The Australian
National University, Canberra
Bourke, RM., Camarotto, C., D'Souza, E.J.,
Nema, K., Tarepe, T.N. and Woodhouse, S.
2004. Production Patterns of 180 Economic
Crops in Papua New Guinea. Coombs
Academic Publishing, The Australian
National University, Canberra.
Bourke, R.M., Hide, RL., Allen, B.J.,
Fritsch, D., Grau, R., Hobsbawn, P., Levett,
M., Lyon, S., Nama, L. and Nen, T. 2002.
West New Britain Province: Text
Summaries, Maps, Code Lists and Village
Identification. Agricultural Systems of
Papua New Guinea Working Paper No. 13.
Revised edition. Department of Human
Geography, The Australian National
University, Canberra.
Bourke, RM. and Tarepe, T.N. 1982.
Locations for commercial citrus production
in Papua New Guinea. Harvest 8(4):147-
155.
Bourke, R.M. and Vlassak, V. 2004.
Estimates of Food Crop Production in
Papua New Guinea. Land Management
Group, The Australian National University,
Canberra.
Brough, E.J. 1982. Observations of Citrus
Insects in the Port Moresby Environs. In:
Bourke, R.M. and Kesavan, V. (eds).
Proceedings of the Second Papua New
Guinea Food Crops Conference. pp. 492-
495.
Cull, R W. and Trochoulias, T. 1982.
Macadamias - Environmental Range For
Commercial Production. In: Noel, D. (ed).
Tree Crops: The Third Component.
Proceedings of the first Australasian
conference on tree and nut crops. pp. 54-61.
8 9
Elevitch, C.R (ed.) 2005. Species Profiles
For Pacific Island Agroforestry. Permanent
Agriculture Resources (PAR), H5lualoa,
Hawai'i. <http://www .traditionaltree.org>.
Evans, RR. 1994. Marketing GaUp Nut
(Canarium spp.) in Kandrian and Gloucester
Districts, West New Britain, Papua New
Guinea. Project Design and Management
Pty Ltd, Canberra.
Evans, B.R 1996a. Overview of Resource
Potential for Indigenous Nut Production in
the South Pacific. In: Stevens, M.L., Bourke,
RM. and Evans, RR (eds). South Pacific
Indigenous Nuts. ACIAR Proceedings No.
69. pp. 10-35.
Evans, B.R. 1996b. What We Don't Know
About Indigenous Nuts in Melanesia. In:
Stevens, M.L., Bourke, RM. and Evans,
RR. (eds). South Pacific Indigenous Nuts.
ACIAR Proceedings No. 69. pp. 67-73.
Fooks, L.D. 1991. The Potential for
Development of a Banana Industry in Papua
New Guinea. In AA Bala (ed). Proceedings
of the Papua New Guinea First
International Fruit Conference. Department
of Agriculture and Livestock, Port Moresby.
pp. 145-151.
French, RR. 1986. Food Plants of Papua
New Guinea: A Compendium. Published
privately, Sheffield, Tasmania.
Gunther, M. and Wiles, G.C. 2003.
Proceedings of the Highlands Horticulture
Workshop. NARI Proceedings No. 3.
National Agricultural Research Institute,
Lae.
Harvey, P.WJ. and Heywood, P.F. 1983.
The Research Report of the Simbu Land Use
Project. Volume IV: Nutrition and Growth
in Simbu.
Henderson, M. 1996. The Role of Galip Nut
(Canarium indicum) in Forest Conservation
in East New Britain, Papua New Guinea. In:
Stevens, M.L., Bourke, R.M. and Evans,
RR (eds). South Pacific Indigenous Nuts.
ACIAR Proceedings No. 69. pp. 80-83.
Henty, E.E. 1982. Some Nut-Bearing Plants
in Papua New Guinea. In: Bourke, RM. and
Kesavan, V. (eds). Proceedings of the
Second Papua New Guinea Food Crops
Conftrence. pp. 78-85.
Houghton, K. 1996. Domestic Market
Development of Okari Nuts (Terminalia
kaernbachii) in Papua New Guinea. In:
Stevens, M.L., Bourke, RM. and Evans,
RR (eds). South Pacific Indigenous Nuts.
ACIAR Proceedings No. 69. p. 100.
Kennedy, J. and Clarke, W. 2004. Cultivated
Landscapes of The Southwest Pacific.
RMAP Working Paper No. 50. Resource
Management in Asia-Pacific Program,
RSPAS, The Australian National University,
Canberra.
Kumar, R (2001). Insect Pests of
Agriculture in Papua New Guinea. Part 1.
Principles and Practice. Pests of Tree Crops
and Stored Products. Science in New
Guinea, Port Moresby.
Laraki, J. and Kumar, R 1994. Pineapple:
Cultivation and Export. Harvest 16(1-2):24-
27.
Long Wah, C. 1996. Marketing Indigenous
Nuts in Vanuatu - A Private Enterprise
Perspective. In: Stevens, M.L., Bourke,
RM. and Evans, RR. (eds). South Pacific
Indigenous Nuts. ACIAR Proceedings No.
69. p. 79.
Maima, M. 1996. Processing of Galip
(Canarium indicum) in Papua New Guinea.
In: Stevens, M.L., Bourke, R.M. and Evans,
RR (eds). South Pacific Indigenous Nuts.
ACIAR Proceedings No. 69. pp. 118-121.
Masamdu, R 1991. Pests of Fruit and Nuts
and their Control in Papua New Guinea. In:
Bala, AA. (ed). Proceedings of The Papua
New Guinea First International Fruit
Conference. pp. 66-73.
Naki, G. 1991. Enga Fruit and Nut Project.
In: Bala A.A. (ed). Proceedings of The
Papua New Guinea First International Fruit
Conftrence. pp. 36-42.
Nevenimo, T. 2004a. Growing Apples in
Papua New Guinea. NARI Information
Bulletin No. 9. National Agricultural
Research Institute, Lae.
Nevenimo, T. 2004b. Pepino: a New Fruit
Crop for the Highlands of Papua New
Guinea. NARI Information Bulletin No. 8.
National Agricultural Research Institute,
Lae.
Nitsche, J.J. (1971). The Growing of
Passion-fruit Harvest 1(2):56-60.
Ngere, O. 2002. Durian. NARI Information
Bulletin No. 2. National Agricultural
Research Institute, Lae.
Ngere, O. 2004. Rambutan. NARI
Information Bulletin No. 7. National
Agricultural Research Institute, Lae.
Odani, S. 2002. Subsistence Ecology of the
Slash and Mulch Cultivating Method:
Empirical Study in The Great Papuan
Plateau of Papua New Guinea. People and
Culture in Oceania 18:45-63.
01sson M. 1996. Okari Ecoenterprises: A
Snapshot of Participatory Rural
Development. In: Stevens, M.L., Bourke,
RM. and Evans, RR (eds). South Pacific
Indigenous Nuts. ACIAR Proceedings No.
69. pp. 94-99.
Pearson, M.N. 1982. A Review of Virus and
Mycoplasma Diseases of Food Crops in
Papua New Guinea. In: Bourke, RM. and
Kesavan, V. (eds). Proceedings of The
Second Papua New Guinea Food Crops
Conference. pp. 448-457.
Peekel, P.G. 1984. Flora of The Bismarck
Archipelago for Naturalists. Henty, E.E.
(translator). Office of Forests, Lae.
Philemon, E.C. and Muthappa, RN. 1991.
Diseases of Fruit and Nuts in Papua New
Guinea A Review. In: Bala, AA (efl).
Proceedings of The Papua New Guinea
First International Fruit Conference. pp.
74-82.
Powell, J.M. 1976. Ethnobotany. In:
Paijmans K. (efl). New Guinea Vegetation.
pp. 106--183.
Rogers, AF. 1992. The Papua New Guinea
Avocado Industry. In: Levett, M.P., Earland,
1 and Heywood, P. (eds). Proceedings of
The First Papua New Guinea Food and
Nutrition Conference. pp. 154-160.
Rogers, A.F. and Movis, A. 1991. Recent
Developments in the Papua New Guinea
Highlands Citrus Industry. In: Bala, A.A.
(ed). Proceedings of the Papua New Guinea
First International Fruit Conference. pp.
152-160.
Rose, C.J. 1982. Preliminary Observations
on The Pandanus Nut (Pandanus julianettii
Martellz). In: Bourke, R.M. and Kesavan, V.
(eds). Proceedings of The Second Papua
New Guinea Food Crops Conference.
Department of Primary Industry, Port
Moresby. pp. 160-167.
Shaw, D.E. 1984. Microorganisms in Papua
New Guinea. Research Bulletin No. 33.
Sillitoe, P. 1983. Natural Resources
Exploited by The Wola in The Manufacture
of Artifacts. Science in New Guinea
10(2):111-132.
Simpson, lA. and Arentz, F. 1982. Notes on
Tree Fruits Cultivated in the Bulolo and Wau
Valleys with Particular Reference to Diseases
and Pests. In: Bourke, R.M. and Kesavan, V.
(eds). Proceedings of the Second Papua New
Guinea Food Crops Conference. pp. 458-
466.
Sinnett, P.F. 1975. The People of Murapin.
Institute of Medical Research Monograph
Series No. 4. E.W. Classey Ltd, Faringdon,
Oxon.
R.M., AlIen, M.G. and Salisbury, J.G. (eds). Pacific Indigenous Nuts. ACIAR
Smith, E.S.C. and Thistleton, RM. 1982. Food Security for Papua New Guinea. Proceedings No. 69. pp. 84-91.
Some Common Pests of Vegetables and Proceedings of the Papua New Guinea Food
Fruit in Papua New Guinea and their and Nutrition 2000 Conference. ACIAR Woodhouse, S. 1988. Mangosteen. Harvest
Control. In: Bourke, R.M. and Kesavan, V. Proceedings No. 99. pp. 839-845. 13(1-4):29-30.
(eds). Proceedings of the Second Papua
New Guinea Food Crops Conference. pp. Wiles, G.C. 1996. Papua New Guinea: a Woodhouse, S. 1991. Asian Fruit in Papua
476--482. Potential Exporter of Tropical Fruits to New Guinea. In Bala, AA. (ed).
Asian Markets. In: Vijaysegram, S. et al. Proceedings of The Papua New Guinea
Tarepe, T.N. 1979. Growing Strawberries. (eds). Proceedings of the International First International Fruit Conference. pp.
Technical Bulletin No. 9. Highlands Conference on Tropical Fruits. Kuala 161-168.
Agricultural Experiment Station, Aiyura. Lumpur, Malaysia. Supplementary 3:47-50.
Woodhouse, S. 1992a. Mango Field
Tarepe, T.N. 1982. Naranjilla: A New Fruit Willson, K.C. 1982. Apples in the Management: Planting and Care of Young
for the Highlands. Harvest 8(4):183-185. Highlands: Results, Culture and Potential for Trees. Harvest 14(1-2):31-32.
High Altitude Gardens. In: Bourke, R.M.
Tarepe, T.N. 1991. Potential for Mango and Kesavan, V. (eds). Proceedings of the Woodhouse, S. 1992b. Mangoes
Production in Papua New Guinea. In: Bala, Second Papua New Guinea Food Crops Flowering to Market: Management of
A.A. (efl). Proceedings of the Papua New Conference. pp. 353-358. Bearing Trees. Harvest 14(1-2):33-34.
Guinea First International Fruit
Conference. pp. 188-193. Wissink, D. 1996. Galip (Canarium Yen, D.E. 1996. Melanesian Arboriculture:
indicum) As a Cash Crop in West New Historical Perspectives with Emphasis on
Tarepe, T. and Bourke, R.M. 1982. Fruit Britain, Papua New Guinea: Experiences of The Genus Canarium. In: Stevens, M.L.,
Crops in the Papua New Guinea Highlands. The Kandrian Gloucester Integrated Bourke, R.M. and Evans, B.R. (eds). South
In: Bourke, R.M. and Kesavan, V. (eds). Development Project. In: Stevens, M.L., Pacific Indigenous Nuts. ACIAR
Proceedings of the Second Papua New Bourke, R.M. and Evans, RR. (eds). South Proceedings No. 69. pp. 36--44.
Guinea Food Crops Conference. pp. 86-
100.
Walter, A., Evans, B., Bourke, R.M. and
Hobsbawn, P. 1996. Bibliography of South
Pacific Indigenous Nuts. In: Stevens, M.L.,
Bourke, R.M. and Evans, RR. (eds). South
Pacific Indigenous Nuts. ACIAR
Proceedings No. 69. pp. 162-172.
WaIter, A. and Sam, C. 2002. Fruits of
Oceania. ACIAR Monograph No. 85.
Watson, B. 2005a. Growing Avocado in
Papua New Guinea. Information Bulletin
No. 11. National Agricultural Research
Institute, Lae.
Watson, R (2005b). Growing Pineapples in
Papua New Guinea. Information Bulletin
No. 10. National Agricultural Research K1lometem
Institute, Lae.
Figure 1. Distribution of mango (Mangifera indica) in PNG. Source: MASP database.
Watson, B.J., Weminga, J., Pandi, 1 and
VIai, S. 200 1. Avocado in the Highlands of
PNG: 'The Silent Provider'. In: Bourke,
10 11
 Figure 4. Distribution of karuka nut (Pandanus julianettiz) in PNG. Source: MASP
database.
Figure 2. Distribution of marita pandanus (Pandanus conoideus) in PNG Source:
MASP database.
Table 1. Review papers that cover :fruit and nuts in PNG

Approximate number of
Main focus species Author
Fruit Nuts

Fruit and nuts, Keravat area 40 10 Aburu 1982

Fruit and nuts, Bulolo and Wau 29 9 Simpson and Arentz 1982
Food crops ofPNG 102 43 French 1986
Fruit and nuts in Oceania 24 26 WaIter and Sam 2002
Horticulture in the highlands 16 2 Gunther and Wiles 2003
Arhoriculture in SW Pacific 15 13 Kennedy and Clarke 2004
Crop production patterns 75 25 Bourke et al. 2004
Pacific Island agroforestry 15 7 Elevitch 2005

Fruit in the highlands 50 Tarepe and Bourke 1982

Fruit in Enga Province 14 Naki 1991
Asian fruit in the lowlands 7 W oodhouse 1991

Edible nuts in PNG 14 Henty 1982

Indigenous nuts in PNG 44 Bourke 1996
Indigenous nuts in Melanesia 25 Evans 1996a

Figure 3. Distribution of gaUp nut (Canarium spp.) in PNG. Source: MASP

database

12 13
 Fruits and Nuts Workshop Proceedings Fruits and Nuts Workshop Proceedings

Table 1. Review papers that cover fruit and nuts in PNG

Table 3. Proportion of rural population who grow certain edible nuts in PNG
Approximate number of
species Common name Scientific name Provinces where nuts are most
Main focus Author
commonly grown2,3
Fruit Nuts Breadfruit Artocarpus altilis 57 ESP, Mor, Mad, MBP, ENB, Boug
Pandanus
Fruit and nuts, Keravat area 40 10 Aburu 1982 Karuka, planted julianettii 47 SHP, WHP,EHP,Eng~Simbu
Fruit and nuts, Bulolo and Wau 29 9 Simpson and Arentz 1982 Mad, ESP, ENB, Boug, Sandaun,
Food crops ofPNG 102 43 French 1986 GaUp Canarium indicum 32 Mor
Fruit and nuts in Oceania 24 26 Waiter and Sam 2002 Karuka, wild Pandanus brosimos 32 WHP, SHP, Simbu, Eng~ EHP
Horticulture in the highlands 16 2 Gunther and Wiles 2003 Polynesian chestnut Inocarpus fagifer 15 MBP, ENB, WNB, NIP
Arboriculture in SW Pacific 15 13 Kennedy and Clarke 2004 (aila)
Crop production patterns 75 25 Bourke et al. 2004 Sea almond (talis) TerminaUa catappa 14 MBP, ENB, NIP, WNB
Pacific Island agroforestry 15 7 Elevitch 2005 Barringtonia
Pao procera 13 ENB, Boug, NIP, WNB, Manus
Fruit in the highlands 50 Tarepe and Bourke 1982 Terminalia
Fruit in Enga Province 14 Naki 1991 Okari kaernbachii 13 Central, Oro, Gulf, Western
Asian fruit in the lowlands 7 Woodhouse 1991 Terminalia
Okari impediens 8 ESP,Mad,Sandaun
Edible nuts in PNG 14 Henty 1982 SislSolomon Pangium edule 8 MBP, WNB,Mad,SHP
Indigenous nuts in PNG 44 Bourke 1996 Castanopsis
Indigenous nuts in Melanesia 25 Evans 1996a Castanopsis acuminatissima 7 SHP
Terminalia
Dausia megalocarpa 2 MBP
Tulip Gnetum gnemon 2 MBP
1. The data are based on a nationwide survey of village agriculture (Mapping Agricultural Systems ofPNG
project), with most fieldwork conducted between 1990 and 1995 (Bourke et al. 1998). Figures are the
proportion of rural villagers living in agricultural systems where each nut species was classed as common
Table 2. Villagers' ranking of the relative importance of fruit and nut trees on New Britain or important The relative importance of 17 nut species was assessed as part of that survey. Because the
(excluding the Gazelle Peninsula)1 number" of plants per household is not great and the plants are spatially dispersed, relative importance is
not easy to assess in the field and the figures are subject to large errors. Nevertheless, ranking of the
Number of relative importance of the species is likely to be fairly accurate.
Common name Scientific name mentions Score 2. The ranking of provinces is based on the number of people growing each nut species, not on the
Breadfruit Artocarpus altiUs 16 114 proportion of people who grow a species in each province. Thus, the more populous provinces are more
likely to appear here.
Mango Mangifera indicalM minor 16 99
GaUp Canarium indicum 15 84 3. Abbreviations for provinces are: Boug BougainviUe; EHP Eastern Highlands; ENB East New Britain;
Malayapple Syzygium malaccense 14 84 ESP East Sepik; Mad Madang; MBP Milne Bay; Mor Morobe; NIP New Ireland; SHP Southern
Polynesian chestnut (aila) Inocarpus fagifer 9 39 Highlands; WNB West New Britain; WHP Western Highlands.
Parartocarpus Parartocarpus venenosa 7 27
Ton Pometia pinnata 7 24
SislSolomon Pangium edule 6 21
Sea almond (taUs) Terminalia catappa 4 16
Pao Barringtonia spp. 3 9
Golden apple Spondias cytherea 2 6
Guava Psidium guajava 1 4
Bukabuk Burckella obovata 1 3

1. This is based on a survey conducted by R.M. Bourke in 16 villages on New Britain in June-July 1995
during the fieldwork for the Mapping Agricultural Systems of PNG project (Bourke, Allen et al. 2002;
Bourke, Hide et al. 2002). This survey was suggested by Will Akus of LABS Keravat. Surveyed villagers
were located on the south coast, north coast and interior of New Britain (but not the Gazelle Peninsula) and
on Unea Island north of New Britain. Groups of village men and women were asked in Tok Pidgin to rank
the relative importance of fruit and nut trees in their diet. The number of species mentioned ranged from
four to eight per village. A score of 8 was allocated to the first-mentioned species in each village, a score of
7 to the second species etc. The maximum score is 128 (16 villages x 8) and the minimum is 1 (mentioned
eighth in one village only). Thus the scores reflect both the number of times that a species was mentioned
and the ranking assigned to it by the villagers.
14 15
 Fruits and Nuts Workshop Proceedings

l
Table 4. The altitudinal range of fruit species in Papua New Guinea
Prunus sp. Plum ?-? 1590-2600
Number of Psidium cattleianum Cherry guava 0-1850 0-1900 3/90
Mean usual Extreme
observations/ Psidium guajava Guava 0-1850 0-2020 191110
Scientific name Common name altitudinaI altitudinal
standard
range (m) range (m) Punica granatum Pomegranate o-? 0-1620
deviation (m)
Rubus lasiocarpus Black raspberry 950-2250 760-2830 5/150 111180
Usual Usual
Rubus moluccanus Red raspberry 0-2150 0-2250 31120
min. max.
Rubus rosifolius Red raspberry12 950-2800 700-2900 8/180 5/60
Ananas comosus Pineapple2 0-1800 0-2380 251110 Sambucus canadensis Elderberry13 450-1900 0-2150 3/110 111140
Annona cherimolia Cherimoya ?-? 750-2200 Spondias cytherea Golden apple 0-950 0-1070 4/110
Annona muricata Soursop 0-1000 0-1460 7/100 Syzygium aqueum Watery rose apple 0-1600 0-1640 3/50
Annona reticulata Bullock's heart O-? 0-1210 ~~glum malaccense Mala~apple 0-850 0-1580 5/80
Annona squamosa Sweetsop (custard apple) O-? 0-1210 L The source is an unpublished paper by Bourke (1989).
puruue::u V-IOVV V-170V U/IVV
'--tlf'Ul Vli1PCllUU 2. Both smooth leaf and rough leaf pineapple have the same usual upper altitudinallimit (1800 m). The
Citrus paradisi x C. rough leaf is less common above about 1500 m and produces the best quality fruit between about 400
reticulata? Ugli 0-1800 0-1830 3/50 and 1200m.
Citrus reticulata Mandarin 0-1800 0-2260 9/50 3. Watermelon is not common above about 1200 m, but is grown up to a mean usual upper limit of 1700 m.
Citrus sinensis Orange 0-1800 0-2280 12/80 4. Lemon grows better above about 400 m. For a fuller discussion on the optimum altitudinal range for
Cucumis melo Rockmelon (cantaloupe) o-? 0-2180 citrus species in PNG, see Bourke and Tarepe (1982).
Cyphomandra 5. DOOan has failed to establish at Bulolo (750 m) (Simpson and Arentz 1982), suggesting that its upper
betacea Tamarillo (tree tomato) 1050-2300 0-2600 8/160 7/170 limit may be below 750 m.
Durio zibethinus Durians o-? o-?
6. Cumquat would almost certainly bear at higher altitudes in Papua New Guinea as it is cold tolerant, but
Eriobotrya japonica Loquat 850-1800 0-2410 3/170 6/70 it has not been recorded above 1160 m.
Eugenia uniflora Brazil cherry 0-1750 0-1880 3/140 7. Mangosteen failed to bear fruit at 550 m on the Managalas Plateau in Oro Province, suggesting that its
6
Fortunella sp. Cumquat O-? 0-1160 upper limit may be below this.
Fragaria sp. Strawberry 800-2450 660-2800 7/100 5/240 8, Mango fruit quality is poor above about 1200 m and bearing is irregular above 1600 m.
1740-
9. Marita pandanus is not usually planted near the ocean, but it is grown in inland areas at altitudes below
Fragaria vesca Alpine strawberry ?-? 3580 100 m, for example, near Kiunga, Popondetta, Gogol Valley and Aitape. It is more commonly planted
7
Garcinia mangostana Mangosteen O-? O-? above about 500 m.
Hibiscus sabdariffa Rosella 0-1700 0-2220 8/160 10. Banana passionfruit plants grow as high as 3580 m but the highest that I recorded fruit was at 2920 m
Malus sp. Apple ?-? 600-2670 (Chimbu Valley) and 2850 m (Sirunki Plateau). Self-sown plants are not common below about 2000 m,
although planted vines bear as low as 1640 m (Aiyura).
Mangifera indica Mango8 0-1600 0-1820 131110
Mangifera minor Traditional mango 0-1750 0-1900 61100 11. Pometia pinnata bears edible fruit up to a mean upper limit of 800 m, but the tree grows at higher
altitudes. It has been recorded at about 1700 m in the Nipa area by Sillitoe (1983:115).
Monstera deliciosa Ceriman ?-2200 0-2330 3/180
12. Peekel (1984:202) implies that Rubus rosifolius has been recorded as low as 300 m in New Ireland and
Morusnigra Mulberry 800-2200 0-2760 61100 81150
New Britain. The Forest Research Institute has one identification from 200 m (Tufi), but all other
Musacvs Triploid banana 0-2150 0-2580 30/130 specimens were collected at over 1000 m.
Nephelium 13. Elderberry grows up to about 2650 m, but does not usually bear fruit above 1900 m.
lappaceum Rambutan o-? 0-750
9
Pandanus conoideus Marita 0-1700 0-1980 37/90
Passiflora edulis f.
edulis Purple passionfruit 800-2300 700-2520 7/90 13/90
Passiflora edulis f. Lowland yellow
jlavicarpa passionfruit 0-850 0-960 5/80
Passiflora ligularis Suga prut (Highland 1350-2350 l300- 3/80 4/140
yellow passionfruit) 2460
1640-
Passiflora mollissima Banana passionfruitlO 1850-2800 2920 71110 5/100
Passiflora
quadrangularis GranadiUa 0-1000 0-1520 10/300
Pen/ea americana Avocado 0-2050 0-2430 16/160

16 17
 Fruit and Nut workshop proceedings

l
Table 5. The altitudinal range of edible nut species in Papua New Guinea
Table 6. Proportion of rural population who grow certain fruit in PNG
Number of
Mean usual Extreme
observationsl Scientific name
Scientific name Common name altitudinal altitudinaI name
standard deviation
range (m) range (m)
(m)
Pawpaw Carica papaya 64 WHP, Mad, ESP, Mor, MEP
Usual Usual Pandanus conoideus
Marita 59 EHP, Mar, WHP, SHP, ESP, Simbu, Mad
min. max.
Pineapple Ananas comosus 53 ESP, Mar, WHP, Mad
Aleurites molueeana Candle nut 0-1800 0-2160 91140 Mango Mangifera indiea 44 ESP, Mad, Mor, ENB, MEP, Bougain
Anaeardium oecidentale Cashew o-? 0-1400 Watermel
Arachis hypogaea Peanut 0-1850 0-1940 21170 on Citrullus lanatus 28 MEP, Bougain, Central, ENB, Oro
Artoearpus altiUs Breadfruit 0-1250 0-1450 231130 Ton Pometfa pinnata 23 ESP, ENB, Mad, Sandaun, NIP
Barringtonia proeera Pao 0-500 0-620 4/90 Malay
Canarium indieum Galip 0-700 0-930 5/160 apple Syzygium malaceense 22 NIP, Bougain, MEP, Central, WNB
Carya illinoensis Pecan ?-? 1390-1640 Guava Psidium guajava 18 Bougain, ENB, Mor, Mad, WNB
Castanopsis Orange Citrus sinensis 13 Mor, Oro, Gulf, Central
aeuminatissima Castanopsis2 700-2350 570-2440 6/80 8/110 Passionfr
Coeos nueifera Coconut3 0-950 0-1310 20/190 uit Passiflora spp. 11 Enga, SHP, Mar
Finschia ehloroxantha Finschia4 0-1850 0-2000 41110 Avocado Persea americana 6 Central, Simbu, Mor, EHP
Gnetum gnemon Tulip 0-1100 0-1330 101150 Bukabuk Burckella obovata 6 MBP, New Ireland, Bougain
Polynesian Mon Dracontomelon dao 6 Madang
Inocarpus fagifer chestnut (aila) 0-400 0-870 4/90 Golden
Maeadamia integrifolial Macadamias 0-1750 0-1810 3/60 apple Spondias cytherea 4 MBP, Manus, NIP, Bougain
Mtetraphylla Mandarin Citrus retieulata 4 Central, Mor, Bougain
Pandanus antaresensis Wild karuka 1000-2350 850-2460 41110 9/90 Parartocar Parartocarpus
Pandanus brosimos Wild karuka 2400-3100 1800-3300 20/150 6/60 pus venenosa 4 WNB,ENB
Pandanus julianettii Karuka 1800-2600 1450-2800 507110 181100 Rukam Flaeourtia rukam 2 MBP
Pangium edule Sis/Solomon 0-1050 0-1380 11/120 Pomelo Citrus maxima 2 WNB,NIP
Terminalia eatappa Sea almond (taUs) 0-300 0-460 4/100 Tamarillo Cyphomandra betacea 2 Mor, Central
TerminaHa impediens Okari 0-1000 0-1100 31110 Coastal
Terminalia kaernbaehii Okarf 0-1100 0-1260 11/90 pandanus Pandanus teetorius 2 Manus
I. The source is an unpublished paper by Bourke (1989). Pouteria Pouteria maclayana 2 Madang
2. Self-sown castanopsis is more common above about 1100 m, although the usual mean lower limit is 700 a
1. The data are based on nationwide survey of village agriculture (Mapping Agricultural Systems ofPNG
m. project), with most fieldwork conducted between 1990 and 1995 (Bourke et al. 1998). Figures are the
proportion of rural villagers living in agricultural systems where each fruit was classed as common or
3. Coconut palms grow as high as 1760 m, but the highest palms that bore nuts in the period 1979-1984 important. The relative importance of 35 fruit species was assessed as part of that survey. Because the
were at Yonki, EHP (1310 m) and the Baiyer Valley, WHP (1220 m). By 1999, coconuts were bearing as number of plants per household is not great and the plants are spatially dispersed, relative importance is
high as 1370 m (Benabena Valley), 1420 m (Korofeigu, EHP) and 1450 m (Wahgi Valley). not easy to assess in the field and the figures are subject to large errors. Nevertheless, ranking of the
relative importance of the species is likely to be fairly accurate.
4. The highest recording for Finschia (2000 m) is a Forest Research Institute record from Aseki in Morobe
Province. 2. The ranking of provinces is based on the number of people growing each fruit species, not on the
5. In its natural range in Australia, Macadamia tetraphylla occurs in a slightly cooler climate than M proportion of people who grow a species in each province. Thus, the more populous provinces are more
likely to appear here.
integrifolia (Cull and Trochoulias 1982; Stephenson, this volume). The limited numbers of observations
from Papua New Guinea do not indicate a separate range for the two species. Both species bear from sea 3. Abbreviations for provinces are: Bougain Bougainville; EHP Eastem Highlands; ENB East New Britain;
level up to 1700-1800 m. ESP East Sepik; Mad Madang; MBP MiIne Bay; Mor Morobe; NIP New Ireland; SHP Southern
Highlands; WNB West New Britain; WHP Westem Highlands.
4. Banana is grown by most households in PNG, up to 2600 m altitude. These data include banana used for
cooking and for fresh fruit.

18 19
 Fruit and Nut workshop proceedings
Table 7. Number of planted economic tree crops per household in Asiranka village,
Eastern Highlands, and Upa village, Southern Highlands l ,2 Tio Nevenimo
Asiranka village Upa village Introduction
Tree crop
Number % mature Number % mature
It was evident from the last farmer
Coffee (Coffea arabica)3 464 95 478 95 consultations in the provinces that there is
Karuka nut pandanus (P. julianettiz)4 176 28 12 60 considerable interest in alternative cash
Highland betel nut (Areca macrocalyx) 137 23 0 earning crops and people are trying a wide
Marita pandanus (P. conoideusi 19 32 29 82 range of crops including spice, fruits, nuts,
Ficus copiosa6 8 86 essential oils, medicinal crops, ornamentals
and timber crops.
1. The source is field counts of trees in 10 male-headed households in each community in September-
November 1984 (Bourke 1988). Asiranka village is in the Aiyura Basin, Kainantu District, Eastern The main reasons for interest in growing
Highlands' Province, while Upa village is located on ~e Nembi Plateau,. Nip~ District, Southern
Highlands Province. Household size in Upa (14.5 persons) IS much larger than m Asrranka (3.9 persons),
fruits and nuts is to help address agricultural
hence the number of trees per person is generally greater in Asiranka. priority issues predominant amongst
smallholders throughout the region, namely
2. Casuarina oligodon is an important planted species in both villages, but trees of this species were not
counted. income generation, food and nutrition
security.
3. Coffee numbers at Upa exclude the large holdings of a single household head. There are 11.8 persons per
household for coffee holdings at Upa.
Research work on fruits and nuts has always
4. The number of karuka trees was probably under-enumerated in Asiranka, as the people spoke of trees been an integral part of Agriculture
that I did not see.
Research in PNG. Formally DAL and now
S. Marita pandanus trees were not counted in the Wage Valley, and the figure for Upa is an underestimate. NARI has continued do research and
6. Ficus trees were not recorded at Asiranka, but there are only a few trees. development work on fruits and nuts. As a
result of the efforts in the past NARI now
has a large collection of a wide range of
both introduced and indigenous fruits and
nuts. The biggest of the fruit and nut
collection is held at LABS Keravat, with
over 50 species and over 200 accessions.
NARI also is now in possession of some of
the commercial varieties of introduced fruits
like Mango, Rambutan, Durian, Citrus,
Avacado and Five Corner. Fruits like
Mangosteen, Abiu, and Jackfruit are gaining
popularity rapidly while fruits like Sour
soap, Rollinia, Canistel, Lanset and Maboro
have yet to be realised by consumers.
While all NARI research stations have a
fruit and nut research component, much of
the research on fruits and nuts is currently
done at LAES Keravat.
Current Research Activities
Research in fruits and nuts at LABS can be
divided into two main components.
1 Indigenous fruits and nuts and
2 Introduced tropical fruits aRd nuts
20
View publication stats
Indigenous fruit and nuts
Work in indigenous fruits and nuts can be
divided into two areas:
1& Domestication; and
El! Commercialisation of indigenous fruit
and nuts
Domestication work involves prospections
for trees with superior characters in the
natural and semi domesticated population.
Once these are identified they are
vegetatively reproduced and planted on
station for further evaluation and selection.
Vegetative reproduction of selected trees is
vital. Therefore the next part of
domestication work is to develop methods
that will allow us to reproduce these
selections. Vegetative reproduction not only
reproduces identical trees but also reduces
age to first bearing and having a dwarfing
effect on the trees.
Commercialisation looks at commercial
evaluation of the various indigenous species
where information to assist large scale
commercial planting, management and
utilisation of various products is generated.
Post harvest, downstream processing,
marketing and markets intelligence are some
of the work done under commercialisation.
The overall aim of research in indigenous
fruits and nuts is to ascertain whether, they
can be domesticated and commercialised.
NARI has identified domestication arid
commercialisation of indigenous fruits and
nuts as high priority in this Area of Research
Opportunity (ARO).
Current research on indigenous
fruit and nuts
Prospection and identification of
superior planting material;
2 Development of vegetative propagation
techniques;
21